Fine - you have a decent presidential candidate. Now for the VP

meh,
Two one-term senators are unlikely to get elected. Edwards and Obama are too similar.

Obama needs someone like Bill Richardson for veep, who has more experience, is from a different branch of government. Richardson could bring in Hispanics, and Clinton supports in a way that Edwards cannot.

Wesley Clark wouldn't be bad either. Just someone from a different background, with more experience. It worked for Bush/Cheney. John Kerry needed Edwards looks, charm, and optimism. Obama needs none of those thing.

Yes, Master.

Oh, wait. We got rid of them from the Empire, didn't we? And they don't want to come back, even after we engineered a chimp to become president. Which only shows that our original decision was correct.

If you're going to be an Igor, then it's "Yeth, Mathter!"

Drew, I like the idea of Clark. Unlikely to happen. But I still prefer Edwards. He was my preferred candidate on policies.

It's a quandary for the Obama campaign because the Clinton supporters are going to need to be won over. Those that think we should choose between not being racists or not being sexists based on our presidential preferences are going to be angry if Clinton is not on the ticket.

Edwards is clearly the best choice, if he wants it. Being the "Bridesmaid" too often is not so good for one's political career.

Any good suggestions for a female veep? I think if that happened (and it wasn't Hillary) McCain would just go jump off a bridge somewhere.

Perhaps things will change if it's actually offered, but Edwards said pretty recently that he wasn't interested in the VP slot. That said, polls do suggest that he would actually defy the traditional wisdom that VPs don't do much for the ticket.

I'm not so sure about the idea of "balancing the ticket". The most important quality in a VP is to be someone you'd want to run the country if the president died. It seems to me that that argues for someone similar to Obama. There's also the idea that choosing someone to compensate for a weakness highlights that weakness.

As for history... Bush/Cheney were something of a balancing act in terms of experience, but they were also from bordering states and held similar views. Clinton and Gore were from neighboring states, were the same age, and had nearly identical policy views. Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards seem like more obvious attempts at balance, and neither worked.

Janet Napolitano of AZ or Kathleen Sebelius of KS. Both are Governors of what are considered Republican states.

Edwards would bring back bad memories of the Kerry campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama would rather avoid such comparisons. If people start saying he looks French, it's all over.

Nope. If you choose a woman it's got to be Hillary (unless she turns it down). My perception is that a lot of women are mad about this. For a long time men patted them on their heads and said that "the weaker sex" wasn't tough enough to be president of this or that. But here they had someone as tough as any man and who played the game like a man and she got denigrated as a cold bitch and for doing what every other politician does. Going with a woman VP will be perceived as cynically throwing women a sop and, worse, just keep the point fresh in women's minds. If it's not going to be Hillary, then go with a man, take the lumps and hope they'll forget about by November.

Edwards' wife is dying. The chances of his being on the ticket are very slim.

As Bob O'H points out, Edwards is a bad choice. He has been mentioned as Attorney General, which would be a great choice. Clinton should go to HHS, and Clark to Defense. Richards would be an asset to the ticket, Clinton a detriment. Obama would be nuts to have the Clintons making policy and plots in the White House. Bubba, however, would be excellent as ambassador to the UN.

Mark Warner is a possibility, as is Jim Webb or Ted Strickland. I don't see Edwards as likely.

It will be interesting if McCain chooses Sarah Palin (Gov. of Alaska) as his running mate, which would probably add pressure for Obama to choose Clinton--which would probably be disastrous.

I'd rather see Janet Napolitano stay as Gov. of Arizona through the end of her term (in 2010) than become Obama's VP--if she leaves office, Secretary of State Jan Brewer (a Republican) would become governor.

Drew: I like the idea of Bill Richardson as VP, he was my favored candidate, despite his gaffes, until he dropped out. I like Obama better than Clinton, but he's still too religious (though at least he's currently "unchurched," doesn't support gay marriage, doesn't support drug decriminalization, etc.

decrepitoldfool: I disagree--McCain has a very strong female VP option available (as per my previous comment). I don't think the Democratic ticket could hope to match Palin with a female VP candidate that comparably appealed to the masses.

I know noone takes any notice of Jimmy Carter, but what about his suggestion of Sam Nunn?

As a Euro-African ape, I'd rather see Edwards doing something useful like Attorney-General than White House tea boy. I don't think Obama is hurting for decent VP candidates.

If Obama picks Edwards, he will most certainly lose in November.

Frankly, the only chance he has to win is if he picks Clinton. He'll lose if it's anyone else. And he may lose anyway.

I'm a staunch Obama supporter. But I'm also realistic and have a pretty good sense of voter sentiment in this country. Most of the Clinton voters I've talked to are now voting for McCain.

And the Republican smear machine has only just started going after Obama. Never underestimate the ignorance of the American electorate and their ability to be swayed by lies and obfuscation. Why do you think Republicans have been so successful the last 10 years?

I'm sure that if you did a poll today of people in the US, more people would answer that Obama is a muslim than would believe that the theory of evolution accurately describes the development of humans.

Edwards disappointed me this time around. The turn from measured liberal to fanatical populist in just 4 years seemed somewhat contrived. Edwards is clearly an advocate at heart, and I think he'd make a lousy governing executive. JakeR is right, Edwards would probably make a dynamite AG. Although, of all three health care plans, Edwards' was the best, IMHO. So I don't think he'd be such a bad choice for HHS either.

Mark Warner would be a good choice for VP because he's been a competent governor that is reasonably well respected by conservatives in a likely swing state. However, Obama could use some foreign policy credentials on the ticket and I don't think Warner brings any of that. On the other hand, Wes Clark is fairly well-versed on foreign issues, but it's debatable whether he would be a competent executive if he ever had to step in for Obama.

As MRW said,
"The most important quality in a VP is to be someone you'd want to run the country if the president died."

Grim as the prospect is, an Obama-led administration will need to have a contingency plan for just such an event, and that includes a VP that can competently deal with the absolute chaos and madness that would sweep the nation if some nutbag assassinates the first black president in history. Heck, now that I think about it, perhaps a general wouldn't be such a bad choice for VP after all.

As his VP, Obama doesn't need a young-looking, good-looking, one-term Senator out-of-office policy lightweight who trips over his tongue whenever he goes off his I'm the Champion of One of Two Americas theme -- a theme at odds, anyway, with Obama's theme of an inclusive One America. In 2004 Edwards was unimpressive, losing a debate to Dick Cheney of all people. He was more polished in 2008 but never more than a distant third in the primary race.

If Obama doesn't choose Hillary Clinton, then Bill Richardson or Jim Webb would be plusses for the ticket. If Bill doesn't shave his beard soon, though, you can scratch him off the short list. There's no upside in "gender balancing" with any female politician other than Hillary. No others are well-known and it would be difficult to argue that any of them are more qualified than Clinton.

The obvious candidate for VP is the Democrat who, like Obama, got about 48% of the primary popular vote. That'd be Clinton. In the view of many, Clinton's gone obnoxiously out of her way every since Super Tuesday to ensure that she'd be the last person Obama would ever pick as a running mate, but give tempers a week or two to die down now and -- who knows.

Overheard in an Oregon bookstore:

"I called my sister-in-law yesterday, she's in Tennessee, they're all Republicans there in my family except my father and me, and she said 'I don't know about this Obama, I heard he's a Muslim,' and I said 'And what difference does that make?' And she said 'That's just what I've heard, but I'm thinking I may vote for him anyway. I want this war in Iraq to end, and McCain doesn't seem to be the man for that job.'"

If a Republican in Tennesee might vote for Obama even though she thinks he might be a Muslim, there's hope of a Democratic victory in November.

I don't see any chance of it being Edwards. Maybe Bill Richardson or Jim Webb, but the choice that would sew the election up is Colin Powell!

I have thought all along that Obama (or Clinton) should choose a Vet as VP. Recall that Clinton One was downgraded by many because of his lack of military experience; putting a bona fide military success on the ticket should modify that criticism. That being said, Wes Clark should be high on that list. Fill in all the other reasons why he is qualified.

However, Clinton Two is my first choice for VP. What John Pieret said.

Jim Webb might well be the worst of the suggestions: to not only turn down the woman rival, but to pick a man with a history of saying how women are not capable? That makes no sense. Edwards is out for all of the reasons suggested. Napolitano and Sebelius come across as saying I don't like or am afraid of Clinton. My pick for awhile was Wesley Clark: strong non-political leadership, won a war, and have the presence to cover the pull out from Iraq. And as a solid Clinton person he might help bring them over. The worst suggestion, which Obama has hinted it, is a Republican like Chuck Hagel. They say that the importance of the VP pick is it is the first presidential decision we get to see. If so, picking Hagel says that Obama is so anxious to be bipartisan that he will give away the store.

My personal prediction is either Clinton, Hagel, or someone totally off the radar. In order to make not picking Clinton politically acceptable he has to have something dramatic, something else to talk about. The other woman won't do it, some senator of governor won't do it. So it has to be either a Republican or someone that makes us all sit up and go "I didn't see tht coming".

So how about ... wait for it ... Steve Jobs? Joking, of course, but it has a disturbing logic.

Scott wrote: "I'm a staunch Obama supporter. But I'm also realistic and have a pretty good sense of voter sentiment in this country. Most of the Clinton voters I've talked to are now voting for McCain."

What state are you in? Who are these Clinton voters, and why should they be appeased if they're so willing to vote for a Republican?

All of the Clinton voters I know are very depressed, but are still Democrats. They despise McCain and wouldn't vote for him if his opponent was Jim Webb and a lot of women really, really dislike Jim Webb (see #21). We are voting for, and many of us will probably work for the campaign of, Obama.

I got my hair cut today. My hairdresser, a long time friend and staunch Democrat (and Clinton supporter) says the talk in the chair is a lot of support for McCain. I asked if that support is thoughtful and she says no. Her impression is that much of it is good old-fashioned bigotry. Her shop (she owns it) is in Huntington Beach, CA, a city in Orange County, an area not exactly known for its progressive politics; her clientele is at least middle class in order to afford her prices. But Obama is not progressive, he is much more in the center. In terms of class and income issues, he is more like the residents of Huntington Beach than he is different.

How about Johnette Napolitano instead of Janet Napolitano?

As an outsider, I would have to say that I agree with John Pieret. My impression is that Obama with Clinton is a stronger and tougher team with her than without her. Yes, there are conservatives who will not vote for a woman or a black man under any circumstances but that sort of bigotry is a lost cause. Forget about them.

#12: And McCain/Palin it is.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/08/29/20080829mccainveep-CR…